Are insurance companies the "root cause" of why most employees can't carry? If so...

[lysander]

Even though the insurance may not say anything about it, the business owners are trying to avoid lawsuits by it.

Or the business owners are pandering to what they perceive to be the public preference. Realistically they may be fearing lawsuits...but posting a sign isn't going to stop any lawyer worth his salt.

Lets say I'm in Burger King having a burger (its almost lunch and I'm hungry) when Joe Jerkface decides to stick a pocket deuce-deuce in the cashiers face. Being a trigger happy militant crazy about to explode CC-er I draw my gun and scatter Joe's brains all over the walls.

Bully to you for the effective use of your CCW.

The next month Joe's estranged wife decides to sue BK for allowing guns in their joint, and decides to sue me for blowing his head off.

Anyone who chooses to carry..and subsequently use their concealed weapon, will face the specter of both criminal and/or civil liability. This is why you had best know the laws in your jurisdiction...bear in mind the lower burden of proof for civil liability.

Now, BK could have avoided getting sued if they had that "no guns" sign. It may not be an insurance policy, but that little sign will help them avoid having to pay out of their lawsuit insurance.

That sign, or the lack of it, isn't going to cut off or create liability for BK...however...in most jurisdictions BK will have a slew of formidable hurdles they could put up to insulate themselves from Joe Jerkface's claims. Including arguments turning on their legal duty to Joe Jerkface, any jurisdictional immunities like previously mentioned by Henry Bowman above, 3rd party arguments, etc.

This is exactly the reason my dad rejoiced after getting me off his insurance, because I'm a liability due to the sue-happy nature of people.

Ummm....you aren't a liability because other people might sue...you are a liability if you do things that give people a cause of action to sue you.

 

[MillCreek]

The only liability insurance product I have ever seen that addresses the issue of firearms at all is liability coverage for security guard services. Your liability premium is much cheaper if the guard force is unarmed, as opposed to armed. If the force is armed, then the insurance company may impose certain training and proficiency requirements as a condition of writing the policy.

 

[Green Lantern]

So all these responses just add fuel to the fire to my conspiracy theory that FFL are not our friends. In particular I detest the gun shops that do not permit CCW. The consensus was that this was because of insurance.

I'm with bogie on this one, unfortunately. Kinda hard to really hold it against someone for a "no CCW" sign when some fool had a ND while trying out holsters in the store for his LOADED gun...

Hmmm...these responses are most "informative!"

 

[dmazur]

JesseL -

+1 to that. IMO, it has to start costing employers to prohibit weapons.

With all the preaching about "private property rights trump RKBA", I'm not sure any court is going to come down in favor of individual rights extending that far, based on Constitutional grounds and eventual incorporation. That only gets us protection from State infringement.

However, if juries can be convinced that there was a reasonable chance someone could have saved their life and was prevented from doing so by an employer's policies, that could turn the tide against the present practice.

What we need is a good case, a lawsuit by a savvy surviving relative.

 

[Henry Bowman]

I'm with bogie on this one, unfortunately. Kinda hard to really hold it against someone for a "no CCW" sign when some fool had a ND while trying out holsters in the store for his LOADED gun...

I find it very easy to "hold it against them." There is a HUGE difference between "No CCW" and "Keep your loaded gun holstered at all times."

They're up against a hard place with liability for employee misuse of guns, we need to squeeze a nice big rock up against them to offset things.

Amen! You sound like a lawyer.

 

[Green Lantern]

I find it very easy to "hold it against them." There is a HUGE difference between "No CCW" and "Keep your loaded gun holstered at all times."

Hmmm....touche sir!

There is one big store that has such a policy IIRC (Sportsman's Warehouse?) - I just wish I'd known that when I was making the call to this particular store to protest THEIR sign. The whole "ND" story kinda took the wind out of my sails...

And I agree 110% that an employer ought to be held liable if he "posts" (or even forbids his employees to carry) and then does not follow up with adequate security. IE, armed guards and metal detectors.

 

[RPCVYemen]

In particular I detest the gun shops that do not permit CCW.

With the weapons handling skills I have seen at some shops, I don't want to be within 500 yards if any of the yahoos ever got their hands on a loaded weapon!

There is one that is close to my house, and convenient so I go there about once every six months. I call it the "Duck and Weave" gunshop. I sure don't want any CCW at that shop.

Mike

 

[jrfoxx]

With the weapons handling skills I have seen at some shops, I don't want to be within 500 yards if any of the yahoos ever got their hands on a loaded weapon!

There is one that is close to my house, and convenient so I go there about once every six months. I call it the "Duck and Weave" gunshop. I sure don't want any CCW at that shop.

While I understand where you are coming from, keep in mind that the very same argument is made by anti-gun people to say that only police and military should be allowed to carry anywhere outside thier property, if they are even willing to "allow" that much. slippery-slope kinda thing, IMHO.

If we as gun owners are seen to say that we think it's ok for a certain business to ban CCW, the anti's will use it to say it that ALL business's should be allowed to do it, and give it force of law, AND say "see, even the "gun nuts" agree that people are unsafe with guns and ccw in public should be banned".

I'm all for Henry Bowman's method. that way, you punish the yahoo that is being unsafe, when he does something unsafe, instead of punishing everyone pre-emptively.We complain A LOT abot the anti's trying to punish safe and law abiding gun owners for the actions of criminals and morons, so I dont think we should support doing doing it at gun shops and gun shows either.Put up a "NO HANDLING LOADED FIREARMS" signs, and punish those who break the rule, and leave those who dont to go about thier business.The moron who is going to fiddle with his loaded gun in a gun shop or gun show, is probly not going to obey the "no loaded guns" sign anyway, so, just like with criminals, those who are the problem are not affected, but those who aren't, will be. I ccw into gun shops and gun shows all the time (and everywhere else for that matter), and have never touched my loaded gun once (while in public, obviously it gets touched whil loaded to have it ready for HD, put it in my holster, etc, but I ONLY touch it at home, or if I am about to fire it at the range, or in SD), so why try to disarm me?